HISTORY OF THE BUILDING
The architectural history of the minster is somewhat vague and
uncertain, and has been the subject of several disputes. It will be as
well, perhaps, before entering into details, to give a table of
approximate dates, both of the different parts of the minster as it now
stands and of the buildings which preceded it. These dates are mostly
sanctioned by the authority of Professor Willis.
Edwin's Wooden Chapel 627 A.D.
Edwin's Minster begun (circ.) 628
" " finished by Oswald (circ.) 635
" " repaired by Wilfrid (circ.) 699
" " burnt down (?) 741
Albert rebuilds Minster (?) 767-780
Minster wholly or partially burnt 1069
Nave, Transepts, and perhaps Choir,
built by Thomas (circ.) 1080
Choir and Crypt rebuilt by Roger 1154-1181
Present South Transept built 1230-1241 (circ.)
" North Transept " 1241-1260
" Nave built 1291-1324
" Chapter-House built 1320 (?)
" West Front of Nave built 1338
Vault of Nave built (circ.) 1354
Presbytery (or eastern part of Choir) built 1361-1370 (circ.)
Choir (west of High Altar) built 1380-1400 (circ.)
Central Tower built 1400-1423 (circ.)
South-West Bell Tower built 1433-1447
North-West Bell Tower built 1470-1474
Choir injured by fire 1829
Choir repaired (circ.) 1832
Nave injured by fire 1840
Nave repaired 1841
South Transept restored 1875
It will be seen that it is doubtful whether the fire of 741 and the
rebuilding of 767-780 mentioned by historians refer to the minster at
all. The fact that a wooden chapel was erected for the baptism of Edwin
in 627 seems to show that no Christian church had remained at York from
Roman days, as at Canterbury; this chapel, therefore, is the first
Christian building in York of which we have any definite record. The
church of stone with which it was immediately replaced was finished by
Oswald, after the death of Edwin in battle; whose head was carried
thither and placed in the Chapel of St. Gregory. It has been supposed
that there are remains of this original stone church in the crypt.
In sixty years Edwin's church had fallen into great disrepair. It was
restored by Archbishop Wilfrid about 669. The following account of the
dilapidated condition of the building as he found it is taken from a
versified life of Wilfrid, ascribed to Frithegode, a monk of the tenth
century:--
Ecclesiae vero fundamina cassa vetustae,
Culmina dissuto violabant trabe palambes,
Humida contrito stillabant assere tecta;
Livida nudato suggrundia pariete passa
Imbricibus nullis, pluriae quacunque vagantur,
Pendula discissis fluitant laquearia tignis,
Fornice marcebant cataractae dilapidato.
Wilfrid glazed the windows, repaired the holes, painted and decorated,
and, strange to say, whitewashed the building.
We now come to the first disputed point in the history of the minster.
In the chronicle of Richard Hovenden it is stated that _Monasterium in
Eboraca Civitate Succensum est nono Kalendas Maii Feria prima_--that is
to say, that a church was burnt down in the city of York on Sunday the
23rd of April 741 A.D. It has been contended that the word _monasterium_
need not of necessity mean the minster, that the word _civitas_ may
perhaps mean the diocese, the ecclesiastical state, and not the city of
York, and that, therefore, the church mentioned may be not the minster,
but some other large church in the city or diocese of York. Professor
Willis is of opinion that this is probably the case.
In the poem of Alcuin or Flaccus Albinus, there is a passage speaking of
a church built by Albert (767-780), in the following terms:--
Ast nova Basilicae mirae structura diebus
Praesulis hujus erat jam caepta, peracta, sacrata,
Haec nimis alta domus solidis suffulta columnis
Suppositae quae slant curvatis arcubus, intus
Emicat egregiis laquearibus atque fenestris
Pulchraque porticibus fulget circumdata multis,
Plurima diversis retinens solaria tectis,
Quae triginta tenet variis ornatibus aras.
It is plain that this church, wherever it was, and the poem does not
mention its locality, was a very important one. It was very lofty, and
had many porches, or apses (_porticus_ may mean either), and thirty
altars.
Just before this passage in the poem there is an account of altars set
up by the archbishop, probably in the cathedral. Professor Willis thinks
that if the church referred to immediately after were the cathedral, an
account of altars set up in it would not be given before an account of
the building of the church itself. But, as Professor Freeman points out,
it is most improbable that two writers, the chronicler and Flaccus
Albinus, should allude to a church other than the minster without giving
its name. It is, of course, just possible that Albert set up his altars
before rebuilding the cathedral, in which case Professor Willis'
contention would lose its force. It is curious that no other chronicler
mentions either the fire or the rebuilding of the church, but this
omission would be almost equally strange whether the building in
question were the minster or some important church in the diocese.
On the whole, therefore, it is perhaps most probable that the church
referred to by Flaccus Albinus was the minster. If that is so, this
church remained until it was ruined by the Danes in 1069. Then it was
certainly either wholly or partially burnt down. Thomas, the first
Norman archbishop, appointed in 1070, found the minster, the city, and
the diocese, all waste and desolate. At first he was satisfied with
roofing in what remained of the cathedral and otherwise restoring it as
best he could. Afterwards, before 1080, he began to rebuild it. It is
uncertain whether he rebuilt the whole church, or merely the nave and
transepts.
Stubbs on this point seems to give two different accounts.
"Thomas," he states, "restored the canons of the church after he had
rebuilt it as well as he could." Afterwards he says, "He built the
church as it now is from its foundations."
Probably, this first passage refers to the immediate repairs which
Thomas found necessary in 1070, and the second to his ultimate
rebuilding of the church.
William of Malmesbury says that he began the church from its foundations
and finished it. In the face of this positive testimony it is probable
that Thomas built not only the nave but the choir. That he did so has
been doubted, because the choir of his day was undoubtedly a very small
one, and was afterwards demolished by Roger. It must, however, be
remembered that Lanfranc rebuilt Anselm's Norman choir at Canterbury in
the same way. It is very likely that Thomas was forced by necessity to
plan his work on as modest a scale as possible, and that the pride of
Roger would not allow the choir of his minster to remain one of the
smallest in the cathedrals of England.
The minster, as Thomas left it, was utterly unlike the present church.
The nave was probably shorter than the present one, and was certainly
twenty feet narrower. This was discovered after the fire of 1840, when
remains of the side aisle walls of Thomas's nave were discovered. There
are no data for the number of piers in this nave or for the position of
the west front.
The tower certainly stood on the site of the present tower, as Roman
ashlaring has been discovered on the north-west side of the north-west
tower pier, above the vault of the side aisle, and also portions of a
shaft with a base, which probably belonged to the Norman clerestory. It
will be seen that the present piers supporting the central tower contain
cores of Norman work recased in Perpendicular times.
The transepts of Thomas's church appear to have been without aisles. The
remains in the crypt show that there were two eastern apses to these
transepts close to the central tower, and Professor Willis deduces from
the position of these apses that they left no room for eastern aisles.
There is no instance in existence of a transept having western without
eastern aisles. One may therefore conclude that aisles were entirely
wanting. Professor Willis thinks it possible that an additional pair of
apses may have existed on the east side of these transepts, to the north
and south respectively of these already discovered. This was certainly
the case in St. Mary's Abbey.
As has been mentioned, considerable doubts still exist as to the size
and character of the choir of Thomas's church.
On the one hand we have positive testimony that Thomas rebuilt the whole
church; on the other, the walls of the crypt, as they existed up to the
time of Roger's choir, are a part of the Saxon church. Their masonry is
Saxon, and they mark the lines of a chancel far too narrow to have been
that of Thomas, even if we suppose that his choir was necessarily small,
from the want of funds at his command, and the wasted condition of the
diocese.
This would seem to support the theory that Thomas left the Saxon choir
as it was, and contented himself with rebuilding the ruined nave and
transepts. In that case, of course, the Saxon choir remained until the
time of Roger.
The alternate theory is that Thomas rebuilt an enlarged, but still a
small, choir, leaving the Saxon crypt as it remains to this day; and
that even this choir proved too small for the magnificent ideas of
Roger, who utterly demolished it to make room for his own great
building, leaving no trace of it above ground. This is the more probable
supposition, and it is supported by the fact that the inner wall of the
crypt is composed of fragments of masonry, buildings, etc., of early
Norman date, which might well be parts of Thomas's choir, if it was
destroyed, as we suppose. Some of the stones are covered with white
plaster, showing they are parts of the interior of a building, and they
are of the same red sandstone as the remains of the transept apse, which
was undoubtedly built by Thomas.
As has been said, the choir of the minster remained unusually small for
so important a church. The eleventh and twelfth centuries were periods
of great activity in church building, and many of the Norman architects
planned their works on a vast scale. With the examples of Durham,
Winchester, and St. Albans before them, it was natural that the
archbishops of the Metropolitan Church of York should be dissatisfied
with the size of their own choir. It fell to the lot of Roger, the rival
of Thomas à Becket, to rebuild it. The date of his nave is approximately
1154-1181. The remains of his work in the crypt show that it was in the
latest style of Norman architecture and considerably influenced by
Flambard's work at Durham, with channeled and fluted pillars. The detail
appears to have been richer and later in character even than Flambard's.
The outer wall of the crypt shows the dimensions of this choir. It was
square at the end, and had flanking towers--two bays from the
east--which served as transepts inside. The eastern transepts of the
present choir still keep the position and tradition of these towers. The
aisle probably ran round the east end as at Romsey and Byland. The two
bays east of the tower were wider than the others. Roger, it should be
said, had been Archdeacon of Canterbury, and he was therefore well
acquainted with the "glorious Choir of Conrad" built by Anselm. There is
much in the planning of his work to show that he was influenced by the
example of Conrad's choir.
[Illustration: The Minster (from an Old Print).]
At the end of the twelfth century the minster was utterly unlike the
present building. Except in the crypt, and in certain parts of the nave
and tower not visible to the casual observer, there are no vestiges of
the work of the earlier builders. There is now no Norman work to be seen
in the minster itself, and in 1200, nave, choir, transepts, and towers
were all Norman. Of these the transepts appear to have been the poorest
part. They were probably short, and had no aisles. The nave also was of
rude Early Norman character. The Early English architects having
determined, probably, to rebuild the nave and transepts, made a
beginning with the transepts about 1230. Roger's choir, only finished
about fifty years before, no doubt seemed to them grand enough. The
transepts were built on a totally different scale to the rest of the
church as it then stood. They were both longer and broader, and they had
aisles on each side of them. No doubt the object of this was to get a
standard for the ultimate rebuilding of the nave. The greater width of
these transepts made it difficult to join their aisles with those of the
nave and choir, and were the cause of a curious and daring expedient,
which will be described in the architectural account of the building.
The south transept was the first to be rebuilt. It is the work of Walter
de Gray, archbishop from 1216 to 1265, who was buried under an arch of
his own building, in a tomb which still remains the most beautiful,
perhaps, in the minster. The north transept seems to have been begun as
soon as the south was finished; it is said to have been the work of John
Romeyn, or the Roman, an Italian, and the treasurer of York. Walter de
Gray probably also had a large part in the building of them. These
transepts are the earliest part of the existing minster. John Romeyn
also built an Early English central tower in place of Thomas's Early
Norman tower. It remained for John Romeyn the younger, son of the
treasurer, and archbishop from 1286 to 1296, to begin the rebuilding of
the nave. It was planned on a far larger scale than the old nave, and
was wider even than the Early English transepts. The old nave had been
83 feet wide, the transepts were 95, and the new nave 103. The
difference in width between the transepts and the new nave is in the
aisles. The plan of the transepts had no influence on the plan of the
nave. The large triforium, small clerestory, and moderate-sized main
arches give way to a large clerestory, large main arches, and
practically non-existent triforium. These are unusual proportions in
English Churches of that period. At Ely, Westminster, Beverley, and many
other places, the proportions of Norman or Early English work influenced
those of the later Decorated and Perpendicular.
The records of the building of the nave are somewhat scanty. Stubbs
tells us that the foundation stone was laid on April 6, 1291, and that
it was begun on the south side towards the east. It has been supposed
that the chief object of making the new nave so much wider and loftier
than its predecessor, was that it might be built round the old work
without interfering with its utility.
But a petition, dated 1298, states that the old nave had long since
fallen (_diu est corruita_). If this were so there was no object in
refraining from disturbing the old work. It is uncertain whether the
nave had been purposely destroyed, or had fallen of its own weight. It
may be, though we have no record of the fact, that Thomas's Norman tower
fell down, as did so many Norman central towers, destroying with it some
part of the nave, and so made the rebuilding of that part of the church
necessary.
The nave is fully developed geometrical Decorated work. It is loftier
than the transepts, and its roof is low pitched. The main part of the
rebuilding seems to have been done between 1298 and 1320. The indenture
for glazing the great west window is still extant, and is dated 1338.
The nave must have been roofed before this.
The vault was probably intended to be stone, but the great width of the
building seems to have made the builders afraid, and they erected a
vault of wood, but shaped and ribbed to look like stone. The outer walls
of the clerestory, and the pinnacles of the south side of the nave show
vestiges of flying buttresses. It is uncertain whether these were merely
intended when a stone vault was projected, or whether they were actually
erected, and afterwards, being unnecessary for the support of a wooden
vault, were allowed to fall into disrepair. There are no flying
buttresses on the north side, and the pinnacles are much smaller.
The west front was undoubtedly the latest part of the work to be
finished, except the vault. The lowest stages, though geometrical in
style, are later in character than the nave itself. The great west
window, and the upper stages are of florid curvilinear Gothic. The west
front is said to have been finished, and the great west window glazed by
Archbishop Melton, who gave 500 or 600 marks to the fabric in 1338. The
church was vaulted in 1354; Archbishop Thoresby is said to have given
the wood. Before the beginning of the nave, the relics of St. William
had been carried into the choir, and installed there with great pomp.
The offerings of the faithful at his shrine helped to defray the expense
of the building. Further funds were gained by means of indulgences
granted by successive archbishops. The houses of Vavasour and Percy gave
wood and stone, and statues of their representatives were placed over
the main porch of the west front.
The date of the chapter-house, and the passage connecting it with the
north transept is disputed. Browne thinks it was begun about 1280, and
finished about 1340. He partly bases his contention on the fact that the
Acts of the Chapter from 1223 to 1300 are given _in Capitulo Eborum_.
After 1300 _in Capitulo Ecclesiae_, or _in loco Capitulari ipsius
Ecclesiae_. After 1342 _in domo Capitulari_. From this he argues that up
to 1342 the chapter-house was not in existence, or unfinished, but that
it was in use from that date. The geometrical character of the tracery,
and the Purbeck marble shafts used in the chapter-house might seem to
support that view. Professor Willis, however, considers there is little
significance in the difference in the phrases used. _In capitulo_ simply
means "in chapter," and _in loco capitulari_ and _in domo capitulari_
are vague phrases which may either mean a chapter-house, or a place used
for the sittings of the chapter. At any rate, he thinks the
chapter-house was not begun until after 1320, and the passage leading to
it is still later. If this is the case, however, there is no reason why
the chapter-house should not have been finished in 1342, and that would
account for the change of phrase in the Acts. Though, at first sight,
the building appears to be Early Decorated in style, on a closer
examination it will be seen that the slender mouldings, the character of
the carvings, and the details, especially on the outside, all point to a
later date. It is curious, however, that if the building was not begun
until after 1320, the tracery was not curvilinear, as in the great west
windows, and the middle windows of the towers built about the same time.
Perhaps, however, the geometrical forms were found to give the greater
support, necessary owing to the absence of a central pillar. On the
whole, the evidence of details, particularly of the foliage in the
beautiful arcading inside the chapter-house, seem to point to its not
having been begun until 1320 or later.
[Illustration: The West Front (1810).]
In 1362 John of Thoresby became archbishop. The times were unpropitious
for building. Yorkshire was suffering much from the black death, there
was great poverty among the peasantry, and the diocese was in great need
of discipline and reform. Thoresby gave himself up for nine years to
this work, and in 1361 he thought the time had come for the rebuilding
of the choir. We have already seen how at York, one great work led to
another. The transepts were rebuilt that they might be in harmony with
the grandeur of Roger's choir, the nave that it might not be eclipsed by
the transepts; and now it was contended that the choir must not be
inferior to the rest of the church. Therefore, on the 20th of July 1361,
it was resolved by the archbishop and chapter that "It was right that
every church whatsoever should agree in the fitting decoration of each
particular part, and that the choir in particular, where the holy
sacrifice of the mass took place, should be especially rich in
ornament." Thereupon they decided to rebuild the choir. The foundation
stone was laid on the 30th July 1361, and the work was begun at the
extreme east end. There was a very good reason for this procedure. The
design of the new choir, both as to size and the planning of the bays,
was modelled on that of the nave. It was Thoresby's object to build the
largest and most magnificent choir in England. It was therefore both
wider, loftier, and longer than that of Roger's, and beginning at the
east end it was possible to complete almost the whole of the portion
east of the altar as it now stands--that is to say, the presbytery,
without interfering with Roger's choir. While, therefore, the presbytery
was being built, the service of the church was still carried on in
Roger's choir, and only the aisles behind Roger's east end were
destroyed. Even when the four bays of the presbytery were completed, say
about 1370, it was possible to continue the aisles of the new choir
proper without interfering with Roger's work, except to pull down the
towers flanking it, so much wider was the new building than the old.
Even Roger's transepts did not extend beyond the aisle walls of the new
choir, and their place was taken by the present eastern transepts, which
are each merely a bay of the aisle, raised to the same height as the
vault of the choir itself, and open to the choir from top to bottom.
There has been a dispute whether or no this presbytery was completed in
Thoresby's lifetime. According to Stubbs, Thoresby provided tombs for
six of his predecessors, and placed them in the choir in front of the
lady chapel--that is to say, in the presbytery.
He also says that _Idem Archiepiscopus ... Capellam ... Virginis Mariae
Mirabili arte Sculpturae atque notabili pictura peregit_.
The building must certainly have been roofed before it was decorated,
and if Stubbs is accurate, and there is no reason to suppose that he is
not, the work was completed by Thoresby. Thoresby died in 1373, and if
he finished the presbytery, there was a gap of seven or eight years
between its completion and the beginning of the choir. There is internal
evidence to support this presumption. The presbytery, though
Perpendicular in its main features, shows many traces of the transition
from the curvilinear Decorated to the Perpendicular style, especially in
the tracery of the great east window and the clerestory windows. In the
choir proper these traces have vanished, and the work, though apparently
of the same character as that in the presbytery, is altogether
Perpendicular. A lapse of ten years in the continuity of the work would
account for this change, and becomes still more probable when we
consider that the circumstances of the time were not favourable for
great expenditure on building. The presbytery had been completed
unusually quickly. Indeed, we know that £627 were spent upon it in one
year, and this was an unusual amount. The average expenditure, for
instance, on the choir of Ely was £318. It was natural, therefore, that
there should be a halt to collect further funds. The work of the choir
itself proceeded much more slowly. There was a complaint in 1390 on the
archbishop's visitation--_quod fabrica ecclesiae negligenter
tardatur_--and it was not roofed in until 1400.
The contract for the glazing of the great east window is December 10,
1405--that is to say, thirty years and more from the date of its
construction. But there is nothing unusual in this. It was customary
before filling windows with stained glass to cover them with linen cloth
which admitted a sufficient amount of light, or to glaze them with plain
glass; and it was only natural that a long time should elapse before
stained glass could be supplied to the largest window in the world.
Burying was begun at the east end soon after 1400, and Scrope was buried
there in 1405. Bowet's monument also was erected there in 1415, while he
was still alive.
A new high altar was projected in 1418, and the new crypt was fitted
with iron work and paved in the same year. The building of the choir had
caused a subsidence in the crypt, so the work of Roger and others was
broken into fragments and patched together, older capitals being placed
on Roger's pillars, in the condition in which we now see it. Nothing is
known of the history of the vaults of the choir and eastern transepts.
Like those of the nave and transepts, they are of wood, though of the
same shape and design as a stone vault.
The great central tower was erected between 1400 and 1423. Hitherto
there had been the Early English tower of the elder John Romeyn,
supported by Norman piers which, perhaps, had received a partial casing
of Early English stonework. These piers were afterwards recased, not
simultaneously, but as the arches between them were erected, in the
following manner:--
Taking the south-western pier for an example: when the present nave was
begun, the western face of the pier was cased with masonry, so that
three parts still remained Norman; when the Decorated arch[1] in the
transept was erected south of it, it received a further Decorated casing
on its south side; when the central tower was built, its northern and
eastern faces were cased with Perpendicular masonry: so, in the case of
the north and south-eastern piers, their eastern faces were completely
cased when the choir was built, their western only when the tower was in
course of erection. To this day it may be seen that there is no bond
between the different periods of masonry, and that the courses are at
different levels.
[1] For the explanation of the erection of this Decorated arch,
see the architectural account of the transepts.
The piers were probably completely recased by 1409.
[Illustration: THE EAST END. From Britton.]
Nothing is known of the elder Romeyn's tower, or the manner in which the
present one replaced it. A great part of the new work has been
attributed to Walter Skirlawe, Bishop of Durham. It will be seen it is
of the same character as the lower part of the central tower at Durham.
It has never been finished, as the corners and the condition of the
masonry at the top still show, but it is impossible to say whether it
was intended to receive another storey, and if so, of what character
that other storey was to be. At one time, as may be seen in old
engravings, it had a turret in one corner, 24 feet high; this was
probably destroyed in the last century.
The south-west bell tower was built probably between 1433 and 1447, the
north-west between 1470 and 1474. They are thus both Perpendicular in
style.
At the end of the fifteenth century, therefore, the minster as we now
see it was fully built. Since that date it has suffered no changes of
importance, and the record is only one of occasional damage from fires
or fanaticism, and of necessary restorations.
The minster suffered to a certain extent at the restoration, and in a
less degree at the hands of the Puritans. In 1734 the nave was repaved.
Several tombs were found when the old pavement was removed, and relics
taken from them and deposited with the other treasures of the minster.
On the 2nd February 1829, Jonathan Martin, a brother of the apocalyptic
painter, John Martin, and a religious maniac, hid himself during evening
service behind the tomb of Archbishop Greenfield in the north transept,
and when the church was shut up for the night set fire to the choir. The
flames were not extinguished until the stalls, the organ, and the vault
had been entirely destroyed. The actual stonework and carving of the
choir were considerably injured, and the glass of the great east window
itself only just avoided destruction. Martin escaped through a window of
the transept, but was quickly captured, and discovered to be insane. The
restoration, carried on by Smirke, was begun in 1832, and on the whole
was fairly done. At any rate, the authorities of the minster may console
themselves with the knowledge that it was absolutely necessary. The
stalls were a reproduction, as exact as possible, of the old woodwork,
but the design of the throne and pulpit are original, and not
successful. The cost of the restoration was £65,000, most of which was
contributed by subscription. Timber, to the value of £5000, was given by
the State, and Sir Edward Vavasour, following the example of his
ancestor of the fourteenth century, supplied the stone.
Another fire broke out on the 30th May 1840. It began in the south-west
tower, and is said to have been caused by some workmen who were
repairing the clock. The whole tower, excepting its shell, including the
bells, was destroyed, and the fire was not extinguished until the wooden
vault of the nave had been burnt. The restoration on this occasion cost
£23,000, and was finished in a year, under the superintendence of Sydney
Smirke, son of the former restorer.
In 1871 the south transept was discovered to be in a dilapidated, and,
indeed, a dangerous condition, and the advice of Street was asked on the
question of restoring it. In his report he stated that the design of the
clerestory, constructed as it was of two thin walls, was not strong
enough for the weight it had to support, even though the vault was of
wood. The whole wall of the transept had given way, and the clerestory,
in particular, was in a very bad condition. It became necessary,
therefore, to rebuild the side walls of the clerestory and the flying
buttresses under the steep roofs of the aisles, to remove the heavy
slates from the roof, and to renew the pinnacles.
On investigation, it was discovered that the inside portion of the walls
had been made up of stone chippings without cement. It is curious that
builders in the thirteenth century, whose system of ornament was most
profuse and thorough, often scamped the more important details of
structure. At Peterborough, no less than at York, instances have been
discovered of what would, in these days, be called jerry-building.
The walls were rebuilt with solid masonry, held together by Portland
cement, and strengthened by wrought-iron bars; the Purbeck marble shafts
were in places renewed; the groining of the vault was stripped of the
whitewash which concealed its material; the lath and plaster work of the
vault between the groins was removed, and replaced by oak boarding; the
bosses were gilded, and picked out with vermilion paint.
The cost in all of this restoration was about £20,000. In the course of
it it was discovered that there were many remains of tombs and coffins
under the pavement, but they have not yet been thoroughly explored.
The reredos, made of terra-cotta and wood, was designed by Street, the
figures by Tinworth.
Modern stained glass windows have from time to time been placed in the
minster. In the last century a certain Pickett patched and rearranged
much of the older glass.